This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. This site is and always will be advert free and I do not expect you to pay me. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07)

Monday, 30 September 2013

Sunday, 29 September 2013

This piece on the BBC website is an interview of Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chairman) by science correspondent Roger Harrabin. Pachauri says "I don't think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase). I would
like to draw your attention to the World Meteorological Organization which clearly
stated on the basis of observations that the first decade of this century
has been the warmest in recorded history". To which Harrabin might have replied "yes, but the annual differences are so small that rate of warming has definitely slowed". But alas Harrabin is much too in awe of the "great man" to dare to question him.

This report in the Telegraph looks at the prediction in the latest IPCC report. What it seems to suggest is that the UK will retain its present temperature due to the reduced warming from the Gulf Stream cancelling out the effects of CO2. They also seem to suggest that our weather patterns will be "disrupted", as if we had some sort of reliable weather now. So the lucky old UK will carry on unaffected, so why are we spending billions of pounds reducing our CO2 emissions? It must be to help those Chinese and Indians who are building hundreds of coal-fired power stations. You couldn't make up a story as daft as that.

Saturday, 28 September 2013

Reporter: I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95% certain” that human activities are largely the cause of global warming, what does that mean? How is 95% calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90% in 2007 to 95% now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?

.

JC: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors. The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me.

.

Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” ”Oh, I feel about 95% certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95% certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.

.

JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.

.

Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?

.

JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on. All this has never been documented.

Friday, 27 September 2013

Here is the press release by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) with links to the report by Andrew Montford into the methods used by the UK Met Office to make their projections of future climate change here in the UK.

Thursday, 26 September 2013

Booker's column considers why it will be so difficult to dismantle all the government schemes set up to tackle the "global warming crisis".

Booker is always worth reading. Here is an excerpt: "the IPCC itself, as the main driver of the scare, has been more comprehensively
discredited than ever as no more than a one-sided pressure group, essentially
run by a clique of scientific activists committed to their belief that rising
CO2 levels threaten the world with an overheating which is not taking place". Great stuff!

As long as the population is prepared to go along with the expensive energy and the blight of wind turbines, then the government will not change course. However if more jobs are lost as industries migrate and if power cuts become a reality then the backtracking will be worth watching.

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

This piece on Bishop Hill blog contains a link to the Newsnight piece which interviewed a number of pro-warmist scientists and Lord Stern, and one token slight sceptic to give an impression of balance. Paxman was a pale shadow of Andrew Neil in his recent grilling of Ed Davey

This report in the Telegraph refers to the meeting of nation states to discuss the content of the latest IPCC report due out in a few weeks. Apparently some states are arguing that there should be no reference to the 16 year pause in global temperature rise, while others want a strong explanation put forward to explain it. What they fear, of course, is that sceptics will ridicule any attempt to state that they are more certain of the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), yet that is, apparently, what they intend to report. I wonder what the increasingly sceptical media will make of it.

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

This article shows how the CO2 madness on energy policy can be reversed. It happens when the population wake up and start demanding it. That will start when the people realise how much it is costing them. It is only when the people feel the effect of price increases and collectively put the blame on the government policy. It requires a number of clear simple articles in the press, which is happening now in the UK.

Monday, 23 September 2013

Here is a press release with links to the very extensive report. Like the IPCC report hardly anyone will read this right through due to its great length and complexity, but the press release contains the gist.

Sunday, 22 September 2013

This article by Ross McKitrick in the Financial Post gives a good account of the current situation between the computer climate models and the data which are growing farther apart as each year passes. As Ross puts it: "The IPCC must take everybody for fools. Its own graph shows that observed temperatures are not within the uncertainty range of projections; they have fallen below the bottom of the entire span. Nor do models simulate surface warming trends accurately; instead they grossly exaggerate them".

Friday, 20 September 2013

This article in the Telegraph quotes the words of the woman in charge of EU energy policy. So that's it - whatever the science turns out to be we are destined for high energy policies. The future looks bleak, time to leave!

Thursday, 19 September 2013

This Mail article again pre-empts the upcoming IPCC report by looking at a leaked draft of it and picks out the inconsistencies. This is but the latest in a long line of articles on the same lines. I almost feel sorry for the IPCC who must be frantically trying to keep the wheels on the climate change bandwagon, and trying to sound credible at the same time.

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

This article gives a thorough summary of the world's future energy demands and how they are predicted to be fuelled. The vast majority of it is likely to come from fossil fuels says the report by the experts at the USA's Department of Energy. Of course any prediction can be wrong, but it's all we can do without a crystal ball. The writer of the article is obviously a climate alarmist, but if you disbelieve all that stuff the facts and figures in the report are very interesting. If one conclusion emerges from it, it is the fact that reducing CO2 emissions is an impossibility, and the UK is spitting in the wind with its current energy policy. Either the climate sensitivity to CO2 is low or we are in for alarming warming.

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

Here is a good summary of the cost of extreme climate alarmism versus the reality of how the climate is currently behaving. It is the climate alarmists who should be made to account for their behaviour, not those using fossil fuels.

Monday, 16 September 2013

Here is the latest report on the elimination of subsidies for new solar energy. Following on from the new Australian government scrapping their carbon trading scheme and the Spanish having already scrapped the subsidies on their new solar schemes it is looking bleak for the future of uncompetitive forms of renewable energy. How long can the UK continue to buck the trend?

Sunday, 15 September 2013

This piece in the Wall Street Journal looks at the massive problem for the IPCC in trying to keep up the alarm, while recognising the reality of the data. Having seen a leak of the draft report Matt concludes "the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm", but I doubt if you will find those actual words in the report.

Saturday, 14 September 2013

Friday, 13 September 2013

Here is a transcript of the debate, and you can see a number of MP's are prepared to put on the record their opposition to the current UK policy. The tide is definitely turning, though there is still some way to go.

Thursday, 12 September 2013

This article looks at the way Stern's economics is not being accepted in the USA. It appears that his analysis of the cost of the "damage" caused by climate change vastly overestimates what most businesses believe is realistic. Stern has been savaged many times before, but in these times when financial constraints are much tighter and the degree of warming is much lower he seems to be more out of touch than ever.

Tuesday, 10 September 2013

This article confirms that Tony Abbott, the new Australian PM intends to deliver on his election pledge to scrap the carbon trading scheme, recently introduced by the previous Labour government (having promised not to do so). This is yet another sign that the world is ready to ditch costly schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. It is an implicit admission that fears of global warming are receding, fears which have not materialised in real data.

Monday, 9 September 2013

This piece in the Mail on Sunday confirms that fears of global warming are now hotly contested in the mainstream media. This is deeply embarrassing just a few weeks before the new IPCC report is due to come out. What will they say? Can they possibly stick with the reported "95% confidence" in the hypothesis of man made global warming, which the public will treat with derision, or do they downgrade a bit to say 70%? Such an admission would be unthinkable, wouldn't it?

Saturday, 7 September 2013

This article gives the news that the EU minister in charge of energy seems to be shifting his position, becoming more favourable to shale gas, and less inclined to go for rapid decarbonisation. As reality dawns the UK's position of going for rapid decarbonisation is getting more and more isolated. I expect it will soften in practice even if they talk the talk.

Friday, 6 September 2013

Here is a link to their website. The idea is to demonstrate using the figures given by the IPCC that it is 50 times more expensive to try to prevent global warming than to mitigate the effects of it if they appear. Although this approach has the drawback of accepting the biased reporting of the IPCC, it nevertheless shows that the carbon trading and taxing schemes are completely pointless, which is well worth making.

Thursday, 5 September 2013

by Penn and Teller uses some fruity language to make its point, but at 20 minutes in length it packs a strong punch against much of the trendy but very costly recycling industry, heavily subsidised by the government (in this case the US government). The points made in the film will be equally applicable here in the UK, or anywhere else. It does not decry all recycling, even singling out aluminium cans as a profitable and useful item to recycle.

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

This article shows why the Chinese didn't sign, and this is why no developing nation will sign in the future. And this is why it is pointless for the developed world to sign up to any successor to Kyoto - because it won't work, and will simply cripple our own industry while giving the likes of China and India a free pass. Either the world is really facing disaster and everyone must stop using fossil fuels, or it is simply a lot of pointless political posturing. I suspect most, if not all, governments really believe it to be the second while pretending it's the first.

I wonder what would happen if the world's temperature really did start to rise alarmingly, with a corresponding increase in severe droughts and floods. Do we think that the Chinese and the Indians etc would then shut down all their coal and oil fired power stations? Somehow I doubt it. Just as well it's not happening.

Tuesday, 3 September 2013

This article reveals the unusually snowy weather in South America which has not figured at all in the main stream media here in the UK. Of course this weather is not the same as the climate, in the same way as hot spells causing forest fires in California or Australia. While the hot spells are prominently displayed on our news programmes, the cold ones seem to get missed off. Strange isn't it?

Monday, 2 September 2013

Here's a great letter signed by many prominent scientists and industrialists urging the American universities to resist the pressure being applied by environmentalists to remove their investments in fossil fuel companies. As the letter states, we need education, not indoctrination.

Translate

Remember when our leaders told us they were certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? They are the same people who now say CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic weather. Politicians tell us what they want us to believe.

WELCOME TO A SANE LOOK AT CLIMATE SCIENCE

"Global warming" could be the most costly scare story in the history of man. It is hysterical alarm built on exaggeration and deceit, fuelled by those with a vested interest.Please use the search facility at the top left of the site to find specific articles among over 3800 on the site. Some suggested key topics: clouds, biofuels, hurricanes, windpower, global cooling, emissions, arctic, antarctic, zero carbon, stars, aussies, china, sun, Gore, schools, IPCC, NIPCC, climate models, hockey stick, trust in science.

ARGUMENTS THAT NO WARMIST CAN WIN

Below are two irrefutable arguments that should be top of any climate sceptic's list.

RECENT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORD

Click here. To see a graph of both surface and satellite temperature; or here for satellite temperature record. Here for satellite records of various sections of the globe. Google Earth global temperatures are here

Followers

SIGN THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION TODAY

Sign HERE for common sense on climate. You can see the massive propaganda behind the "global warming" theory, so please stand up and be counted!

About Me

I have a BSc Honours degree in Applied Chemistry. After working in detergent research for a short while I then spent 17 years teaching science. Following that I ran my own successful property company with my wife Andrea. I am currently a New Forest District Councillor. I was involved in the campaign to try to keep Al Gore's political propaganda film out of English schools.
I have three grown up sons and six grandchildren. Three have now left school while the others are currently (2017) aged 1,7 and 9. I see them regularly and take a great interest in their education.